Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 2, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PDT

3:00 am
attractive again. he unplugged the sander and yelled at my staff and said i got home at 3:30 and haven't slept. this is unacceptable. so, that's the kind of thing we're dealing with. the music, the ipod, myself on night number 4, i heard grievance from these guys, complaint this fez guys. so, i initiated it myself. we turn off the ipod at midnight every single night. we have no mandate to do so. we have a mandate to stop serving alcohol. we honor that. there are people cleaning and i apologize for that, but it is in a music-free zone. i run a very clean and professional operation. people do their jobs and they go home. i don't pay them to party. i don't pay them to stay. >> okay. i just have a specific question. outdoor operation, outdoor activity is supposed to end at 10 o'clock weekdays 12:00 midnight friday and saturdayv. i assume you're compliant with the outdoor area. i have done everything in my power.
3:01 am
i did everything one or two nights and i lost it on the managers. >> thank you. a couple comments. i think these are things that have to be done. those are the conditions. and in the future, you have to make sure the outdoor area is -- diners and other patrons are asked to complete whatever they're eating and leave by 10 o'clock on week nights, and then by 12:00 midnight on friday and saturday and because that's probably the most egregious because the noise really carries a little bit more. yes. >> okay, i appreciate that. and the other thing i would say is as far as any future construction that's needed, i would ask that you talk to the tenants and let them know ahead of time if there is something going to be done in the middle of the night or you could -- you may have to close for a day to do some of the work depending on the extent of the work. but those are the two things i'd like to see at least from my point of view. okay, i think those are the main things. there were complaints about the garbage. i assume it's being kept inside
3:02 am
and not out -- if i could actually address that. because when we met last year that was one of the concessions we made. we spent quite a bit of money with engineering. we designed a garbage facility in the basement of our restaurant because bottle breakage was a concern with one of the neighbors. we store our trash can and washing facility in the downstairs of our restaurant. we have a hydraulic lift that brings the cans up every night inside of our own kitchen. nobody on the street can hear t. at which point we roll those out onto the street. i did see some video that one of the upstairs tenants filmed. it looked like a truck coming by and rummaging through our trash cans. that's not something that we can control. and someone saying that we store our trash canses in theiral -- all cove or their all cove is completely baseless. >> it's a matter of the garbage
3:03 am
service picking it up unless some people are going through it, which you can't stop? because i can't stop it in the back of my house. they're out there all the time. that's absolutely correct. >> they come every time. in the morning they're there trying to go throughv garbage. it's happening in every restaurant. >> all right, i appreciate your comments. yeah, i think that there are areas here that -- that's fine, joy, i don't need you any more. there are some areas that i think we need communication. that's the biggest part of it. let the tenants know when things are going on, but it sounds like the noise level has been established as being appropriate, that, you know, if there is some light pollution, it's certainly ease toy correct that. if there are flood lights shining in somebody's window, i would ask owners to make sure lights are not directed at any of the upstairs, wherever that's possible, if that is in fact the case. because those are the ones, the complaints i've heard and it seems like as long as there's communication and i'm fine with
3:04 am
the operation. it's very successful and it's done a lot to enliven that part of the city and it's a success story on valencia street, but we do have to be considerate of the tenants. >> commissioner borden. >> i live in this stayedction. i'm familiar with the property and haven't seen anything crazy. the valencia corridor is very noisy at night nighttime and busy. not just this property, but the entirety of valencia is a crowded and noisy place. but i do understand, i live next door to two restaurants and where i live abuts two restaurants. and the truth is it's noisy. it's not because of the restaurants trying to be noisy or do anything out of the ordinary. i live above a tattoo parlor. i hear their music all day long. and sometimes it sounds like it's in my apartment, and it's not. i don't know if it's the way some of the buildings were built especially because my
3:05 am
building is from 1911, that is part of the thing. the issue with noise and restaurants when you coexist on the same lot is a difficult one because what seems super loud actually is usually within the code. and that's what's always surprising. music downstairs i hear or when they were doing the restaurant, rebuilt the deck out back, the people downstairs rebuilt the back area, it sounds like it's in my place. but the acoustics of these buildings just are not great. i think the only way you can remedy this is somewhat with the soundproofing that's been suggested i think moving forward with that. the issue with the windows is a tough thing because obviously restaurants get very warm when there are a lot of people in them. any space does. sound travels. you're right, that little space is small and i can understand how the noise would bounce out of there. it's a real challenge, quite frankly, of the fact the buildings are really not very well insulated. and it's the way the noise travels.
3:06 am
i tell you that i think that the best that we can do is try to keep the dialogue open between the two parties to have other -- to make sure things work through. it sounds like the trash is in the appropriate location. sounds like the hvac equipment has been updated, but, you know, it's really hard for us to do anything beyond that because the truth is -- i understand what you're talking about. i live with that myself. but also, i don't complain for me because i recognize i live -- i abut two restaurants and next door to the restaurants, the noise comes there. i understand it's challenging because that restaurant wasn't there when you all moved in and it has to be -- seem extremely loud to go from quiet to having all that noise. i can't imagine the sea change that must feel for you, but at the same time i don't feel that there's -- other than the soundproofing, i don't feel like there's anything more that we can do from our end to
3:07 am
remedy the challenges that you have because they are unfortunately a challenge of coexisting on a commercial corridor with businesses. i think to the extent that we can have -- that you guys can keep a dialogue open, that they can warn you if they're going to be doing work, if there is ensurance there is no work happening in the overnight hours, ensurance that there's no music, you know, after they're closed being played. unfortunately with people walking bay or people becaming, smokers, i sometimes have smoke in my unit from passers by. i understand that's a hard thing to control. and if the restaurant is not controlling that issue, please do make sure that you contact the police department because they're right by the sidewalk and that would be a sidewalk issue. but, you know, from our standpoint, we don't have any basis to do -- based on the sound reports -- anything to do from our standpoint. so, it's not that we're not hearing you and i completely
3:08 am
understand your issues. i have them myself. but there is not -- our hands are kind of tied in the sense that it is an ncd, neighborhood commercial corridor district, and all along that street there are, you know, the kind of businesses that are located there. >> commissioner moore. >> the project as it stands and conditions were approved last year, and is no evidence as submitted by the department, by the experts which does not bring this project in compliance with the terms. it's in the details where the recipients of the restaurant now being the downstairs neighbor are being affected more than anything we could ever predict. if you were to have an existing business with residential, no one will exactly know what it will amount to. when you have an alley with
3:09 am
sound effects being accelerated to noise and light bouncing back, there are a lot of unknowns. what that says to me as a commission is that sometimes we might have to look at opening times a little more closely. but what is in front of us is indeed a question of staff, of staff asking for guidance from us. and the first thing is as always the big guy and the little guys, i would say this particular case the big guy is the restaurant owner. and i'm not here to judge. i'm not here to make anybody right or wrong. but i think that the basic tenet of conversation between the two parties is absolutely unacceptable because they don't hear each other. so, basically such as a serial part of being right, both in their own light are right. however, between those two rights there is a lot of wrong. and i think there is either a
3:10 am
mediator or there is a request from this commission to ask the two parties to really understand each other's issues because the fact that they're neighbors living on top of each other will not go away. that will stay that way. you can decide to live in disagreement for the rest of your life or you can decide to take a new crack at it and look at the other possibilities, and that is fine. some form of common ground, that is a small gesture of empathy than anything else. you say, gee, i really get it. and i would like to make that as a positive comment. would you mind coming up here and talking to the owner? yes, right here. [inaudible]. >> you know what i'm talking about. i raised money. i don't have any of my own. hopefully some day i'll get this thing paid off.
3:11 am
>> the thing is you own the restaurant. yeah. >> you have a partner and that's great. you made a strong case of this commission to give you the approval for your restaurant. i'm asking you to be the person who steps into the dialogue and try to understand people -- i'm all for it. >> okay. and i'm asking the other party to just do the same. and asking mr. jackson, who was extremely diligent in answering commissioners' questions and investigating literally every aspect what she needs to bring to this commission as a professional, to be the observer, that the dialogue between these two parties becomes more productive. that does not mean that everybody is going to give 100%, but there is some ground which there is a better way of resolving conflict than what i hear today. that's all i can say. >> commissioner, a question? no question? >> no. i just wanted to see you and
3:12 am
see that you hear me. thank you. >> so, along the lines of i think director for staff, i think there is a need to continue to monitor, to continue to try to understand what's happening at various hours of the day, to ensure compliance. if i could talk to one of the tenants or tenant representative. please come forward. i just wanted to ask whether or not the offer of soundproofing the windows and the curtains has been made and if it were to be made, if you would accept it. it was made in the beginning and it was never brought up again. >> okay. well, i think along the lines of what commissioner moore has brought up, there needs to be a dialogue, maybe there needs to be a mediator. but there is a need for the two parties to talk to each other to figure out how to coexist. can i just say one more thing, please? >> i'm sorry, i don't have any questions at this time. >> commissioner antonini. >> following up on comma commissioner wu said, i think
3:13 am
that's a real positive step. while this is informational, but in my mind i think that would be something that would help. project sponsor has offered to put the double pane windows into the residences above the restaurant. hearing that, i would like to see that move forward in regards to the noise issues if at all possible, and that would eliminate a lot of the trouble. that's because noise seems to be one of the biggest complaints i'm hearing. one of the other things i think could be fairly easily remedied if a flood light is facing the wrong direction. and, you know, activities in the middle of the night would be judiciously used and kept quiet. i think if we can have that done, i think it would -- from what i'm hearing, would be a big step in the right direction. and i'm happy to be available. and i can be of any service on this, thank you. >> commissioner sugayo. >> yes, it didn't help when
3:14 am
commissioner antonini was talking for you to shake your head no. that is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to get beyond here. so, i don't know if you get it or not. yes. [inaudible]. >> in regard to his comment about pointing a flood light in a different direction. [inaudible]. >> well, we're not trying to say it is or it isn't. it's just a gesture and an attitude that didn't sit well with me. sir, i understand -- >> we're not having a dialogue here, all right. that said, i think that my recommendation to the zoning administrator is not to extend the hours. it says here we can advise the za on whether to extend the hours or not extend the hours. and i don't know why that's in there. right now we can do nothing. but if there is some recommendation we'd be -- i don't know, is this going to go before the za for an extended
3:15 am
hours request? [inaudible]. >> all right. if it does right now, i don't think we should recommend it be extended given the current situation. and also with respect to noise, the salter is fine, except it doesn't take into account most of the things people are complaining about. i didn't hear any rebuttal to the fact deliveries are made at 1:00 or 2:00 or 3 o'clock in the morning. and if they are, i think they need to stop. i didn't say they were. i said testimony was given that people said they were. and i am saying if they are, then they ought to stop and come during the daytime. and as far as the other kinds of noise, they take place, you know, maybe at hours that the salter report doesn't cover. and they can't be there every night and they can't be there for every incident that the neighbors are complaining about.
3:16 am
so, again, as commissioner moore said, it's in the details rather than the overall, you know, are they within the noise ordinance of the city. so, those are my comments. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, my comments in regards to the flood lights were if there are floods. i did not say there were floods that were miss directed. but if there were, i'm saying some of these complaints that have been alleged which may or may not be true are easily remedied if they are true. and if they aren't true, then they don't have any basis. but, yeah, i think this is important, and you know, there have been -- i'm a little concerned there was testimony about the fact that there had been some kind of protest at the restaurant. i don't know, this may have nothing to do with this. but very upset about what happened last friday night in the mission where vandals went out and were vandalizing restaurants. i just want to make sure that everyone gets along. law & order is really important and we have to be respectful of
3:17 am
each other. and i'm all for improvements that we can make to make the tenants' lives more comfortable. however, you know, i don't want to hear any reports of any kind of illegal activities. i'm not saying it's coming from anybody here. i'm just saying, you know, that really bothers me when that kind of thing happens and you read about it and nothing has been done from what i can understand. so, i think those are some suggestions. and if we can move forward with the double pane windows and anything else that will make -- make a laundry list of what tenants need and we'll see if we can work something out. >> commissioner hillis. >> question for staff. do we have the authority to change -- if we, you know, continue this here, we don't take action. do we always have the authority to reduce the hours of operation for outdoor seating? >> the way the condition is written right now, you can direct the za to do it. so the za can do it.
3:18 am
or if you yourself want to change it, you have to schedule a new hearing and that is something that is noticed, public testimony and you can change the hours at that time. >> okay. and that remains a possibility? >> correct. >> you know, i kind of agree with commissioner willis as issues. a lot of it was about the hvac system or cleaning crew noise, which i agree, the two parties need to work together and figure those out. but it would be good to continue to have that monitoring by staff and the continued ability to adjust those hours if need be. >> commissioner moore. >> why don't we ask ms. jackson to come back within about three months and give us a progress report, the first thing. and this will be baby steps. i don't think all of a sudden everything will be happily ever after. i think it will take time to build the communication to get to better response from both parties to each other. and i would definitely support
3:19 am
what commissioner borden described from her own life experience. i happen to live in a block where there is also a restaurant opening to the mid open space, and you do hear people. you partially get used to it, but it is not totally quiet. and in the end you get used to it to the extent that it does not interfere in a way that it directly shines into your window, banging and smoke coming into your bedroom, et cetera. so, the tenants which currently seem to have very personally related issues to sleeplessness, et cetera, will have to get used to some form of another use being present. it's just a matter of extent. so, if ms. jackson would come back to us and give us a progress report. and if at that time we need to consider other measures, we can do that then. >> okay. so, let me try to wrap some of this up. we're not going to take action,
3:20 am
but possibly a directive. before i do that, my comments are this business has only been open for six months, six plus months or so. i think any new business when it first opens, it has to get the kinks out and it sounds like the business has made some adjustments. whether it's a belt on the rooftop fan, whether it's adjusting music. so, to get things dialed in, i think we should give them a little bit of slack the first couple months. what's apparent to me, though, at least they notified the 300 foot radius. there is only complaints from one building, that's next door. i understand that. but from the police department there have been complaints that are made, but there is no to my knowledge any citations or violations from the police department which to me is tell tailing. you can call them. but if they haven't found anything that's illegal, that's something different. acoustic sound checks have been done. i agree with commissioner moore to ask for another round, i don't know if we need to hear that.
3:21 am
it can be submitted in a memo to the department. but i think that's important. it sounds like the business owners are trying to be cooperative. the offer of the windows, whether it was offered one time or two times or still offered is important. i think you should follow-up on that and take advantage of any kind of window treatment that you can from them. so, the directive is to maybe have the sound check done one more time in three months. maybe after a few more adjustments are made in the business, report back to us in the form of a memo or quick update. i don't think it's an intensive sound check that's required. and if we hear complaints from other neighbors, other people in the neighborhood, not just the next door neighbor, then i think that warrants us looking at it again. but right now i don't see anything else. >> okay . mr. president, if i could just for the public restate that, you are requiring
3:22 am
that staff do another sound check in three months and report back to this commission in the form of a memo? >> thank you. >> thank you. that concludes this item. >> next item, please. >> commissioners, you are now on item number 9, case no. 2012.2 40 t, five foot height bonus for [speaker not understood] and 24th street, noise alley neighborhood commercial district. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is proposing to amend the plotting code to provide a five foot high bonus for the ground floor in the commercial corridors in castro street and 24th street noe valley neighborhood commercial district. before i give my presentation, i would like to introduce andre [speaker not understood] who is sponsoring this. >> good afternoon, commissioners.
3:23 am
andres from scott weaner's office. he is in committee and is not able to come here today. placing before you amend the castro [speaker not understood] and allow for a five foot height bonus for active ground floors. you have seen similar legislation recently that has provided this bonus to parts of taraval, judah, noriega, clement, [speaker not understood] and other commercial districts throughout the city. but the presentation allows street frontages to be built in the same way they were historically with tall area ground floors. we believe that this is good urban design and will help further activate our neighborhood commercial corridors. this legislation to be clear would not allow for an extra story of development. we have met with the many neighborhood organizations of these two communities, both merchant groups and neighborhood organizationses and their strong support for this legislation and we would be honored to have your support as well. thank you.
3:24 am
>> thanks, andres. so, this bob o'brien -- bonus will only be applicable to active uses provided on the ground floor. * and as mentioned it will not be sufficient to add a new floor. and the height increase will only be applicable for the ground floor. i'm just going to go over all districts that have done the same provision. it happened in 2008 and in eastern neighborhood and market octavia in 2009 n c-2 and nc3 districts, some designated parcels, something mission street and silver avenue. and then again in 2009 nc1 parcel a commercial use on the ground floor, within the area of san jose avenue, sergeant street, and most recently in 2012 in the inner and outer
3:25 am
richmond neighborhood and a few commercial corridors and then the sunset, after that, and there are two more ordinances pending by supervisor olague that would provide this and [speaker not understood]. so, the two corridors right now are active commercial corridors and the existing building contacts has a really high ceiling and the commercial on the ground floor and this legislation would just allow no projects to fit into the existing context. that concludes my presentation on this. are there any questions? >> thank you. is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> yeah, thank you. we have a number of other neighborhoods and i think this
3:26 am
is really good legislation. as has been pointed out, what it does, it allows an additional 5 foot bonus. the bonus can only be used on the lower floor. and it makes a more gracious ground floor which is in keeping with what was the case when buildings were built historically in san francisco and in recent years. ground floors were compressed in an effort to get as many floors in as possible and is much more welcoming, safer, because i think you have more windows, you have more light. there is more of a presence and identification with the indoors. so, i would be supportive and would move to approve. >> commissioner hillis. >> i second. my only question is why don't we take this up and do it everywhere in neighborhood commercial districts instead of piecemeal? >> [speaker not understood]. >> you would? >> yes. >> neighborhoods are getting used to it. it would be less controversial.
3:27 am
>> yes, supervisor sandoval tried this after the market and octavia plan was adopted. most recently in north beach and other neighborhoods. after that point people just brought forward proposals for individual districts. >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay. so, we have a motion and a second? >> yes, you do. commissioners, the motion on the floor for approval on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner hillies? >> aye. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that is a unanimous vote. commissioners you are now on item number 10, case no. 2012.1066 [speaker not understood] south san francisco right to revitalize housing ordinance in city hall and the right to return to revitalize housing public units. >> good afternoon, commissioners, department staff. the item before you is an ordinance introduced by
3:28 am
supervisor olague that would amend the san francisco administrative code to establish the san francisco right to revitalized housing ordinance and set city policy regarding the right to return to revitalize housing units. i am going to give a brief overview of the proposed ordinance and turn the floor over to dominica from supervisor olague's office. there are also representatives from mayor's office of housing and the director of housing authority are here to answer any questions that you might have. the proposed ordinance would establish the right of return to the city of san francisco so that a person who has been displaced by public housing revitalization project has a right to return to the development once the work is complete. this would apply only to public housing projects. projects on property owned by the san francisco housing authority that receive money from the mayor's office of housing. the ordinance would also establish a framework for the relocation process and establish the san francisco relocation appeals board as the
3:29 am
appeal body of the relocation appeals. there is currently no existing title state or city law that guarantees a person has been displaced by public housing revitalization project the right to return to a development once the work is complete. there is existing federal law that requires anyone displaced by public housing revitalization be provided relocation assistance and to ensure that there is a comparable housing or temporary housing available. with that i'd like to turn the podium over to dominica from supervisor olague. >> good afternoon, commissioners. supervisor olague would be here but she is in committee right now. since this ordinance was introduced there has been a number of changes to this. on september 10th the housing authority and the mayor's office of housing submitted some comments that -- for the most part were accepted and we are planning to introduce them as amendments to the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on